Meme power

From: Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace,alt.society.neutopia,alt.memetics
Subject: Meme Power
Date: 19 Feb 1995 05:20:35 GMT
brock@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov wrote:
> I don't doubt the power of science, but a walk down almost any street
> convinces me that rational inquiry is hardly the most powerful of memes,
> if it may be called a meme. My meme pool is in the heart of the Bible belt,
> and we have a church on practically every street corner.
Yeah, well all those churches have indoor plumbing and electricity,
their memes are now firmly entwined with science/technology memes.
Rationality is definitely not an infinitely powerful meme.
Obviously it has had some success because you and I are
not priests pontificating in a mission. We are working at research
institutes, conducting experiments.
> Pure rationality lacks a motivational component.
Well no one meme can survive on it's own, can it.
All I claim is that rational inquiry and organized skepticism
are two meme complexes that will be with for a long while. They are
essential for 'progress'.

From: dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace,alt.society.neutopia,alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Meme Power
Date: 19 Feb 1995 14:10:38 -0800
Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca> writes:
>Rationality is definitely not an infinitely powerful meme.
>Obviously it has had some success because you and I are
>not priests pontificating in a mission. We are working at research
>institutes, conducting experiments.
Rationality has had some success, but the statement that scientists
are "not priest pontificating at a mission" is often untrue. Kuhn,
Popper and virtually anyone who studies science knows that it often
driven by dogma and shared assumptions. A recent and major example
was the denial of McClintocks work (she latter recieved a Nobel
Prize) because it conflicted with accepted assumptions of neo
Darwinism. The strength of science as a "critical community" is
that it does have self correcting mechanisms. The rules do correct
many (but not all) errors. Related to this is the common place that
truly new paradigms have to wait for the old generation of scientists
to die out (not always true, but still a real tendency which does
delay "progress").
One thing I have noticed on I-net is a tendency for people to deny this
observed feature of the imperfect social mechanism we call science.
Admittedly the trigger is often somebody pushing a demonstratably
false point of view who appeals to past mistakes to argue "open
mindedness". The thing is that past failures do exist, dogma
(which is not necessarily false) affects all minds (including those
who pride themselves on rationality and then suppress their awareness
of the irrational within themselves). Scientists are quite often
"priests", the thing is that good scientists also follow a set
of behaviors which allow them to radically alter dogma when certain
criteria are not met. But not all scientists are good scientists,
they move with the crowd or stay committed to the ideas of a
persuasive professor. A "scientific" view of science requires
acceptance of the fact that it shares many features with religion
organizations (in their more rigid forms). Irrationality coexists
with rationality and those who deny their capacity for irrational
belief systems take and idealized and illusionary (non rational)
view of themselves.
- ac -

From: Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace,alt.society.neutopia,alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Meme Power
Date: 21 Feb 1995 17:30:26 GMT
dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen) wrote:
>
> Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca> writes:
>
> >Rationality is ... not ... infinitely ...
> >pontificating. We are
> >conducting experiments.
>
> One thing I have noticed on I-net is a tendency for people to deny this
> observed feature of the imperfect social mechanism we call science.
Science is a fascinating complex of variuos memes and lots of interexting
people with dangerous hi tech equipment added in for good measure.
> A "scientific" view of science requires
> acceptance of the fact that it shares many features with religion
> organizations (in their more rigid forms).
see my posts: VotM II, III re: phylogentic constarints and the link
between xtian and scientific thought

From: dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace,alt.society.neutopia,alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Meme Power
Date: 21 Feb 1995 13:52:09 -0800
Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca> writes:
>see my posts: VotM II, III re: phylogentic constarints and the link
>between xtian and scientific thought
I would like to see these posts and others organized into a "Classical
Meme FAQ". We could keep this posted frequently and it would allow
others with somewhat different approaches to differentiate their
vocabulary from yours.
Many of us play with I-net in our part time leaving little time
for anything else, have feeble local libraries and otherwise
discouraged from quick consultation of sources.
Building introductory approaches into the group and (as material builds)
archiving these at a text base (Gopher) site is a way to start giving
this group some of the rigor you require.
- ac -

From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Dangerous Meme Power
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 05:30:28 GMT
In article oi9@crl8.crl.com, dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen) writes:
]It is to be expected that they deny their previous dogma. Those of
]weak moral character always change their memories of the past. After
]the Vietnam war was over, 80% + of the population recalled (with
]apparent sincerity) that they had always opposed. After Watergate,
]polls indicated that Nixon was never elected.
]
]In dealing with sheepish populations, one can't expect moral integrity,
]only that they be shifted to more advanced ways of thinking.
Does this help explain why in the Eighties all of a Sudden
folks were Not Only Openly ProMilitary, but had also Single
handedly Won the War in Vietnam when they had worked with
a SuperSecretHyperCubedSpecialForcesMilitaryGroup, even
though None of these SingleHandedWinnersOfTheWarInVietNam
were ever at anytime aware that there were any Other
SuperSecretHyperCubedSpecialForcesMilitaryGroup that
were fielding the One True SingleHandedWinnersOfTheWarInVietNam?
Granted, I am Willing to concede that Most of these
Glorious SingleHandedWinnersOfTheWarInVietNam wound
Naturally Not Be Mentioned by the SuperSecretHyperCubedSpecialForcesMilitaryGroup,
as well as the Government For Reasons of National Security,
but it does Make Me Worry MORE about what this Means in
terms of the HiddeousHiddenHandOfTheZionistHomoSexualFiduciaryCommunity
and their Meglomaniacal Control over the EastCoastWimpLiberalMediaStooges.
And does this Help Explain how today we all of a Sudden
have a Rash of AntiWarDraftDodgers like Newt Gangerous and
RushDododie and Phil Gramm who all have Convincing arguments
about why they had Always been on the Side of Truth, Justice
and the American Way, unlike all the Other Social Parasites
who were Merely Shirking their Moral Obligations....
ciao
drieux
---
This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.